Intéressant cet article du Washington Post qui établit les similarités et les différences entre deux discours importants des Présidents Obama et Bush en Israël. Si les discours se ressemblent sur des comme la reconnaissance d'Israël par Truman, les souffrances du peuple juif, le rôle des Nations-Unies, la menace iranienne, la dénonciation du Hamas et la nécessité pour les États-Unis d'appuyer Israël, ils diffèrent sur les questions des liens avec le monde arabe ainsi que sur les étapes à venir.
Un extrait:
"Relations with Arab World
“This fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it in the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to the millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in freedom. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.”
— Bush
“This truth is more pronounced given the changes sweeping the Arab World. I recognize that with the uncertainty in the region -- people in the streets, changes in leadership, the rise of non-secular parties in politics --it is tempting to turn inward. But this is precisely the time to respond to the wave of revolution with a resolve for peace. As more governments respond to popular will, the days when Israel could seek peace with a handful of autocratic leaders are over. Peace must be made among peoples, not just governments. No one step can change overnight what lies in the hearts and minds of millions.”
— Obama
Bush’s speech was made before the Arab Spring and its messy outcome, so his vision was much more hopeful. Israeli leaders were always suspicious of Bush’s desire to promote democracy in the Middle East, believing that popularly elected leaders would be less likely to maintain friendly relations with Israel. Obama tries to make the case that Israel now has a more pressing need to show progress on ending the conflict with the Palestinians precisely because those elected leaders may be swayed by popular passions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-speech-in-israel-versus-bushs-speech/2013/03/21/a7b3a4b8-9267-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_blog.html?hpid=z2
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire